You just want to get on the roof and scream when you see what has been done

[ThomWV]

Cut the fucking contribution to Social Security! What one earth are they talking about, what kind of insanity is this? Do you realize what the Republicans have done, and done with language alone? They have misrepresented Social Security so often and for so long that enough working people now misunderstand what it is and how it works that they can push through measures that are sure to kill it. They didn't do this by forcing anything down anyone's throat (why do they always use "shove it down your throat") they did it by mischaracterizing Social Security.

Consider how it looks to any 30-year-old. For as long as they've been working Republicans have been hammering Social Security. They have call it an entitlement program for so long that even elected Democrats, who dam sure better know better, go along with them in describing it one.

Social Security is not an entitlement program, its an Earned Benefit. You worked, you paid in, you earned every dime of benefit you might receive.

But Republican's have not only managed to change the picture of Social Security people have in their mind, they have actually turned Social Security into an entitlement program. And how have they done this, you might reasonably ask. They did it by sending every dollar Social Security took in that was in excess of its immediate needs and supplemented the General Fund with it. Then, by way of the continuing 'budget crisis' they have created and perpetuated Social Security is forced to come back to the General Fund for its monthly needs. There you have it, instant entitlement program, fully tied to the budget where no such link previously existed.

Now if you're a young person working away at a job what are you to think? You've been told all your working life that the money you are paying in is robbery because you will never draw a dime of it back. This is a lie of course, but after ten years or so of hearing it you become brainwashed. They are taking out the money anyway and you don't think you're going to get anything back, so when someone puts a reduction in how much comes out on the table you support it for all you're worth. Of course if less gets paid in then the system is weakened farther and one more nail is driven into its coffin. And of course the Republicans know this too - once that withholding tax was "temporarily" cut there is not one snowball's chance in hell it will ever be raised back up again. You think the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich are proving hard to do away with?

So starting with a lie and a distortion of language the Republicans finally got Social Security where they want it. Its in a downward spiral that can only be stopped by increasing revenue, something they are well versed in blocking.

And if that doesn't make you want to go up on the roof and scream then what does? And by the way, how in hell could any Democrat go along with this? What on earth can justify jeopardizing the only social safety net a huge portion of the population has or ever will have? What?

[Incitatus]

1. Damnit. I can't rec this

more than once.

[Curmudgeoness]

2. I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!

I also am mad at every single Dem who uses the term "entitlement". And I am mad at any person who is trying to destroy SS, which I have paid into all of my life, and did not resent it because I knew it was a just program.

The only thing I see that can save it is to get a super majority of Dems who are true Dems into Congress, and make it a priority to shore up and protect SS.

[indepat]

3. Repugs either lie, distort, dissemble, prevaricate, or obfuscate: they have to for their entire

agenda/mantra is but one big lie that requires a continuous pack of lies, distortion, dissembling, prevarication, or obfuscation to keep up the subterfuge. :patriot:

[femrap]

77. But it is a

democrat as prez who is killing the program. Cutting the amount that workers put into the program is all this president's work. He didn't have to do this, did he?

He does as he is told...bought and paid for....just like all the f*cking political minions in DC except for a small few.

Makes me sick.

Serfing USA. WASF

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raksha]

117. That's right - a DEMOCRATIC president is responsible.

That "temporary payroll tax holiday" scared the crap out of me for exactly this reason. The first cut is the most hardest; subsequent ones become easier. By framing it as an almost insignificant "tax holiday," a small break during hard times, some people (too many) were able to ignore what a dangerous precedent was being set up. And he pulled it off--that's the really scary thing.

[SusanaMontana41]

130. He didn't have to do it. Correct.

I have no idea what he stands for anymore.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

123. THEY MUST KEEP THE PROPAGANDA GOING

[ProSense]

4. Hmmmm?

"Social Security is not an entitlement program, its an Earned Benefit. You worked, you paid in, you earned every dime of benefit you might receive."

I heard that somewhere

"And if that doesn't make you want to go up on the roof and scream then what does? And by the way, how in hell could any Democrat go along with this? What on earth can justify jeopardizing the only social safety net a huge portion of the population has or ever will have? What?"

Nothing, especially since the claim that the payroll tax jeopardizes SS is inaccurate.

Dean Baker: The Payroll Tax Cut Did Not Cost Security Revenue

The NYT wrongly told readers that the payroll tax cut cost Social Security, "resulted in $67.2 billion of lost revenue for Social Security in 2011." This is not true. The tax cut was fully offset by money from general revenue so that the trust fund was unaffected by the tax cut.

Memo To Gretchen Carlson: Economists Say Cutting Payroll Tax Would Boost Employment, Economy

[kentuck]

8. Was it before or after this article?

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/the-payroll-tax-cut-a-stimulus-that-progressives-should-oppose

[ProSense]

12. Hmmmm?

<...>

This is important background because it seems that an extension of the payroll tax cut into 2012 is the most likely form of stimulus currently on the table in negotiations between President Obama and Congress. This would mean extending the 2 percentage point reduction in the employee side of the payroll tax for another year. If the current arrangement is left in place, the Social Security trust fund will be credited with an amount equal to the tax cut so that the program’s finances are left unaffected.

In principle, this would be a reasonable form of stimulus. The distribution of the tax cut is relatively progressive, albeit not as progressive as the Making Work Pay tax credit that it replaced. It gives workers a tax break equal to 2 percent of their wages up to the payroll cap of roughly $108,000. This means that the tax break going to Wall Street types will be no larger than what a senior firefighter might get.

Since most of the money will go to middle-income and low-income people, it is likely that a large portion will be spent. This makes it much better stimulus on a per-dollar basis than the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

However, there is a serious political problem with tying the tax cut to Social Security. While the deal is that the trust fund will be unaffected by the tax cut, the question is what happens when the extension ends. Several Republicans in Congress have already publicly said that they would oppose restoring the payroll tax to its former level, since that would be a tax increase. And increasing taxes is the most deadly sin for many Republicans.

<...>

Baker: The Payroll Tax Cut Did Not Cost Security Revenue

The NYT wrongly told readers that the payroll tax cut cost Social Security, "resulted in $67.2 billion of lost revenue for Social Security in 2011." This is not true. The tax cut was fully offset by money from general revenue so that the trust fund was unaffected by the tax cut.

Point is consistent: Payroll tax cut does not impact the trust fund.

[sabrina 1]

22. Highlighting makes all the difference

From your own link, proving that the OP's and others' concerns are absolutely on target:

However, there is a serious political problem with tying the tax cut to Social Security. While the deal is that the trust fund will be unaffected by the tax cut, the question is what happens when the extension ends. Several Republicans in Congress have already publicly said that they would oppose restoring the payroll tax to its former level, since that would be a tax increase. And increasing taxes is the most deadly sin for many Republicans.

Playing political football with SS is NOT acceptable. Not for a Democrat!

Once this is accepted, as your own link asks, 'what happens when the extension ends'?

See above highlighted segment for the answer.

Explain that away, in your own words, not with carefully selected highlights, if you can!

[ProSense]

25. Yet,

"Several Republicans in Congress have already publicly said that they would oppose restoring the payroll tax to its former level, since that would be a tax increase. And increasing taxes is the most deadly sin for many Republicans."

...they're currently rejecting the extension. Not only that, but it would require a new bill to extend it.

Do you really believe that given the power to negatively impact Medicare and Social Security that Republicans would focus on a payroll tax holiday?

Hint: Bush's privatization scheme, Ryan's plan, and "Cut, Cap and Balance" come to mind.

[sabrina 1]

26. No, they are not all rejecting it. Boehner and Cantor have already

stated they can see themselves accepting it. The teabaggers kneejerk 'Obama's proposing we must oppose it' response will not have anything to do with the Leadership's decision. Like Palin, the teabaggers have worn out their welcome.

Do I think Republicans would pass up a chance to cut funding to SS? Not in a million years. I am, as I said already, willing to bet that this part of the proposal will be accepted by them.

[ProSense]

28. Wait

"No, they are not all rejecting it. Boehner and Cantor have already stated they can see themselves accepting it."

You believe Boehner and Cantor?

What they have said is they're open to it if...

That means conditional as a hostage to something else they want.

[sabrina 1]

31. Lol, but you believe the teabaggers?

I believe that this is a Republican dream come true, and no matter what they say publicly, they know that if Bush had proposed it, Democrats would have gone wild so he could not. Now, they have a chance to start cutting the funding to SS and I am certain they will accept it. Although since they got this much without even asking, I think they will wait a while, pretend they're not sure about it, then ask for more.

[sad sally]

35. What a sweet way to buy a bundle of votes - on both sides of the isle. n/t

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

55. Wait

" but you believe the teabaggers?"

...what?

Memo To Gretchen Carlson: Economists Say Cutting Payroll Tax Would Boost Employment, Economy


"I believe that this is a Republican dream come true, and no matter what they say publicly"

What else are Republicans secretly dreaming of?

[sabrina 1]

136. It's been in effect for nine months. Where is the boost, where are

the jobs? We don't have to get 'opinions' from anyone, all we have to do is look at the results.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shining Jack]

32. +1

[Shining Jack]

30. +1

[ooglymoogly]

48. It also changes SS from earned to entitlement.

This is not acceptable. If they want to give a tax cut to working people, why do they have to tie it to social security except for that reason. He is using pug tactics to destroy SS as the most successful program for seniors ever devised... by hacking away at its foundations as a self paying and self perpetuating program.

[sabrina 1]

54. Exactly, SS should not even be a part of this discussion.

The whole thing is so transparent, they are determined, all of them, to see who can do the best job of the beginning of the privatization of SS by weakening it every way they can.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Shining Jack]

29. Hmmmm?

Yawn!

[druidity33]

13. after, apparently.

It's also the same author, a Dean Baker. He opposed it in July and last week seemed to think better of his former opinion.

:shrug:

[Luminous Animal]

20. Dean Baker is still opposed. Prosense is pretending that Baker correcting

a factual error in the NY Times means he now supports the payroll tax cut.

He does not.

Prosense's 1st paragraph comes from the July article that you mentioned:

The Payroll Tax Cut: A Stimulus That Progressives Should Oppose

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/the-payroll-tax-cut-a-stimulus-that-progressives-should-oppose

Following Prosense's snip, Baker writes this:

This raises the possibility that Republicans will try to keep the lower Social Security tax rate in place indefinitely. If there was a commitment to permanently replace the program’s shortfall with general revenue, the loss of the payroll tax revenue would not matter. However, there is no such commitment.

Obviously the Republicans want to reduce Social Security’s revenues so that they can turn the fictional Social Security crisis into a reality. If the program were to permanently lose the revenue from 2 percentage points of the payroll tax then Social Security would first face a shortfall in a bit more than a decade, rather than the quarter century of full solvency currently projected by the Trustees. And the size of the projected shortfall would be instantly doubled.

[pscot]

21. Spin happens

But it's seldom so neatly unpacked.

[ProSense]

23. Can you be more disingenuous?

Baker has consistently stated that the payroll tax cut does not impact the trust fund.

<...>

This is important background because it seems that an extension of the payroll tax cut into 2012 is the most likely form of stimulus currently on the table in negotiations between President Obama and Congress. This would mean extending the 2 percentage point reduction in the employee side of the payroll tax for another year. If the current arrangement is left in place, the Social Security trust fund will be credited with an amount equal to the tax cut so that the program’s finances are left unaffected.

In principle, this would be a reasonable form of stimulus. The distribution of the tax cut is relatively progressive, albeit not as progressive as the Making Work Pay tax credit that it replaced. It gives workers a tax break equal to 2 percent of their wages up to the payroll cap of roughly $108,000. This means that the tax break going to Wall Street types will be no larger than what a senior firefighter might get.

Since most of the money will go to middle-income and low-income people, it is likely that a large portion will be spent. This makes it much better stimulus on a per-dollar basis than the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

However, there is a serious political problem with tying the tax cut to Social Security. While the deal is that the trust fund will be unaffected by the tax cut, the question is what happens when the extension ends. Several Republicans in Congress have already publicly said that they would oppose restoring the payroll tax to its former level, since that would be a tax increase. And increasing taxes is the most deadly sin for many Republicans.

<...>

Baker: The Payroll Tax Cut Did Not Cost Security Revenue

The NYT wrongly told readers that the payroll tax cut cost Social Security, "resulted in $67.2 billion of lost revenue for Social Security in 2011." This is not true. The tax cut was fully offset by money from general revenue so that the trust fund was unaffected by the tax cut.

That is the point. Deal with it!

[Luminous Animal]

44. Dean Baker's point (and the point that several DUers are making) is that CURRENTLY

(please keep that word in your head), the SS fund will not be impacted by payroll tax cuts because the shortfall will be made up from the general fund.

CURRENTLY.

Now Mr. Baker is a smart man and so are many DUers. We've witnessed what can happen with temporary tax cuts and funding SS from the general fund is apt to put is funding at the whim of deficit hawks. The scheme also puts SS funding as a contributor to the deficit and more vulnerable to political attack.

This is not good and why Baker titled his piece, The Payroll Tax Cut: A Stimulus That Progressives Should Oppose and the good progressives on DU do.

As for me being disingenuous, I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Sirveri]

69. The point isn't SS funding, it is the source of the funding.

And yes, it matters that the shortfall from payroll taxes is made up from the general fund. This ties Social Security into the general fund and then an honest case can be made that it adds to the deficit.

THAT IS THE POINT.
SS is part of the general fund, therefore SS adds to the deficit, therefore SS is now a target for cuts to balance the budget.

And now they have a new super congress to push spending cuts through.

[plumbob]

87. Cannot be said much better than this. This is a huge problem, and

it is the stake they will use to drive into social security's heart.

[ProSense]

102. Yeah,

"The point isn't SS funding, it is the source of the funding."

...so I've heard.

It's really interesting that in the face of that information, the objection to this become how it's paid for.

Kuttner suggested replenishing the trust fund with a temporary surtax on the rich. Roubini suggested the tax holiday be paid for by letting the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 expire.

President Obama proposed ending oil subsidies, closing corporate loopholes and the Bush tax cuts for the rich (millionaires), which will have a long-term impact on revenues as opposed to a temporary surtax.

[Sirveri]

132. None of those things, is in this bill, so what's the point?

If they're not in the bill they're not on the table. This will be tied to the deficit, and then later when the Republicans have the chance, they'll gut the program.

[Life Long Dem]

33. Read on...

This raises the possibility that Republicans will try to keep the lower Social Security tax rate in place indefinitely. If there was a commitment to permanently replace the program’s shortfall with general revenue, the loss of the payroll tax revenue would not matter. However, there is no such commitment.
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/the-payroll-tax-cut-a-stimulus-that-progressives-should-oppose

[ProSense]

100. BTW, here's is Baker's response to the President's jobs proposal

Statement on the American Jobs Act and Work Sharing

Washington, D.C.- Following the President's address to Congress and the announcement of the American Jobs Act, CEPR Co-Director Dean Baker released the following statement:

"It is encouraging to hear that President Obama included work sharing as part of his jobs agenda. This is a job creation measure that both has been shown to be successful and has the potential to break through partisan gridlock.

"The basic logic of work sharing is simple. Currently the government effectively pays for workers to be unemployed with unemployment insurance. Rather than just paying workers who have lost their job, work sharing allows workers to be partially compensated for shorter work hours. Instead of one worker getting half pay after losing her job, under work sharing five workers may get 10 percent of their pay cut after their hours are cut by 20 percent.

"This situation is likely to be better for both employees and employers. It allows workers to maintain their jobs and continue to upgrade their skills. It avoids a situation where workers may end up as long-term unemployed and find it difficult to get re-employed.

"This is also likely to be better from the standpoint of employers since it keeps trained workers on the job. When demand picks up, they don’t need to find and train new workers, they simply must increase hours for their existing work force.

"This approach has been a proven success in many countries, most importantly Germany. The unemployment rate in Germany is half of a percentage point below its pre-recession level even though its growth has been no better than in the United States. If a work sharing program here in the United States can reduce dismissals and layoffs by just 10 percent, it would generate the equivalent of 2.4 million new jobs a year.

"As a new approach, this plan may also get around Republican opposition. Work sharing has drawn support across the political spectrum. AEI economist Kevin Hassett, who was Senator McCain’s chief economist in his 2000 campaign, has been a vocal proponent of work sharing. The policy in Germany is fervently embraced by Germany’s conservative government.

"It is encouraging that President Obama was willing to step outside the box and try a new approach. If the Republicans cooperate, this policy could make a big difference to millions of workers and their families."

[customerserviceguy]

41. And where did that money from the general fund come from?

Borrowing. So now, Social Security is part of the national debt problem. Any transfer payments from the general fund to Social Security when we're not running a surplus (like that will ever happen again!) makes Social Security dependent on the nation's credit rating and prevailing interest rates.

You may want to look at accounting tricks and conclude there is nothing funny going on, but it was accounting tricks that got us into this position in the first place.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scuba]

5. For 30 years they've been chanting "Social Security is broke". The wingers PR machine makes the...

...Death Star unnecessary.

[customerserviceguy]

43. Eventually, they would be right

And now is when we face that reality. Social Security has been paying out more than it's been taking in for about 2-3 years now. With the baby boomers either taking early retirement, or trying to qualify for disability, I cannot see any reversal of that situation until the recession/depression is over. Even then, the high-paying jobs that have rescued SS in the past are probably not coming back.

[Scuba]

62. They could fix it in an hour. n/t

[customerserviceguy]

80. With what?

All I hear here are the old standards: stop military spending and dump that money into Social Security, or just raise the wage base, and there's enough money out there from the well-off to keep kicking the can down the road for a few more decades.

We need a multi-pronged approach to dealing with Social Security, or it's going to go away of it's own dead weight. The 25 year period that the trustees have said that the so-called 'surplus' is based on some very rosy predictions. I contend that it will be gone in a decade.

[plumbob]

88. Remove the cap on income for contributions. That is all that is needed

for solvency to the limit of any model available.

Yes, it could be fixed in an hour. But thieves are looking at the last big lump of cash available in the universe, and their mouths are so full of spit they can hardly contain themselves.

[customerserviceguy]

89. Of all the posts that advocate such

I've never seen any that referenced any solid accounting of just how this would work in practice. While raising the wage cap needs to be done (and the sky should be the limit on the employer's share) I just don't believe that there are enough people making over the cap to make the situation better all by itself.

I think more things need to be done, including the chained CPI for indexing benefits, and changes in the retirement age, with a reversion back to 65 for the most strenuous jobs, while pencil-pushers like me can wait until we're 70 for full benefits. We may need to increase the FICA tax rate as well, and we might have to move the disability program over to the general budget, then expand it to more than just covered workers.

[Scuba]

98. Ridiculous. Eliminate the cap. That's plenty. If you need more, raise the cap gains rate. n/t

[customerserviceguy]

106. If there is indeed plenty

where's the proof? Where's the statistics on just how many people in the US are still earning more than the current cap, how much we'd raise in FICA taxes on them, and how much longer it would propel the Social Security System before it runs out of IOU's.

I see many, many more people hurrying to get their SS checks, either by retirement, early retirement, or disability than I see well-off people that we can get an extra two or three thousand a year from. And when those people retire, their benefits will be even higher than the current benefit cap (which is tied to the payroll cap).

[plumbob]

103. Here you go. This has been known since 2005 at least.

http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20050217/


Removing the Social Security earnings cap virtually eliminates funding gap
Using relatively pessimistic assumptions about future growth in productivity and immigration, the Social Security Administration (SSA) actuaries estimate that Social Security trust fund revenues will fall somewhat short of covering scheduled benefits over the next 75 years. Until recently, President Bush had signaled opposition to any revenue increase to close that shortfall. On February 16, however, President Bush indicated his willingness to consider raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax. SSA actuarial estimates show that eliminating the cap would virtually eliminate the projected 75-year funding shortfall.

This shortfall is less severe than is often presented by proponents of Social Security privatization. SSA’s projections show that a 1.9 percentage-point increase in the existing payroll tax dedicated to Social Security would close the projected funding gap over a 75-year period. Using slightly less pessimistic economic assumptions about the next 75 years, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated the gap could be closed over the next 75 years with just a 1.0 percentage-point increase.

Currently, all earnings up to $90,000 are taxed at 12.4% to fund Social Security. Each dollar earned over and above this cap is completely exempt from Social Security taxes.
<snip>

The figure below shows the current actuarial shortfall faced by Social Security under both the SSA and CBO estimates, and the effects of removing the earnings cap on taxes and benefits, based on a 2005 memo by the Office of the Actuary for the SSA. Removing the earnings cap on taxes and benefits improves the 75-year actuarial balance by 1.7% of payroll, thereby eliminating 90% of the funding deficit forecast by the SSA. Removing the cap would completely eliminate the deficit forecast by the CBO with its more plausible economic assumptions.

Click on link to see chart

[customerserviceguy]

109. The fact that this guesstimate is six and a half years old is quite evident

Without even going into the article attached, the first thing that glares out is that the wage cap in that ancient article was only $90K. Of course, today, it's $106,800, some 18-19% higher than the figure used in that article. The second thing that pops out at me is the expectation at the time of that article that Social Security had enough to last nearly 75 years. Currently, the rosy scenario is about 20-25 years, and I doubt that greatly.

There are some problems with the guesstimates used by the Social Security trustees then, and now. They've always seen the US economy bounce back a couple of years after each recession since the Great Depression, and they continue to use that in their planning. Yes, they theoretically saw the baby boomers coming, but did they see the proportions of them needing to take retirement at 65, or early retirement, or even filing disability claims because of the rotten economy? I don't think they did.

Get some numbers on how many people are earning more than $106,800 and a reasonable estimate of how many of them will continue to work if we raise the wage base, and we can have some napkin math about how much that's going to raise in taxes per year. Once we figure in the accellerated number of early retirements and successful disability claims caused by this recession/depression into that, we can start to have an idea if simply raising the cap is enough to get the job done. It's my contention that it is nowhere near enough.

[plumbob]

134. It's not a guesstimate. It is an actuarial study, which you said you had

never seen.

Early retirement saves the system money, because benefits are reduced.
Disability saves the system money, because Medicare costs $4500 a year compared to $14,000 for the private sector.

If you truly believe that someone making $150,000 a year will retire rather than pay $2500 a year in FICA, then they need to retire and make room for people who still want to work, who do not have everything, and who can simply stop working. They need to be cleared out. However, you cited no kind of guesstimate on how many that might be, so we have nothing to work with.

Rising interest rates will increase the return for the fund as well, making the fund even more solvent.

Your contention is not based on any numbers, not even a guess, not the slightest link or evidence that supports it, so I guess I will stay with professionally trained actuaries and people whose job it is to figure these things.

[customerserviceguy]

135. It's an old article

and six and a half years is an eternity, when you consider that the economy had been rather solid (compared to the last few years) for about fifteen or so years before that article was written. There's no getting around that.

Early retirement means that people collect for 3-4 years earlier, especially before they're dead, which costs the Social Security System. It doesn't save any money, especially in the short term.

The disability fund is going broke even faster than both Social Security and Medicare, and will need some big fat shoring up to even keep afloat before the end of this decade.

Yes, interest rates are going to rise. But that interest being paid to the Social Security trust fund will come directly out of the general fund, which will simply have to borrow it, at the higher interest rates. Social Security puts the nation further into the hole as interest rates rise from the historical lows that they are today. It's not the solution to a problem, it's merely the compounding of a problem.

You're right, I need to find some numbers, and I will get back to you on this. Can you at least acknowledge that with a crappy economy, more people than usual are trying to head for the exits on Social Security?

[plumbob]

137. Yes, the crappy economy IS causing more people to retire early.

That's the case by report and by my own observation.

Thanks for the offer to get info and get back. I appreciate that.

[HereSince1628]

6. Hey don't worry, it's just the seed corn that is being eaten

Surely a big healthy global corporation like Monsanto will provide a cheap replacement next spring at the peak of demand for seed.

[Octafish]

81. The Cannibal Time will further reduce whatever surplus population survives Monsanto's largess.

Of course, our valued high-net worth individuals will not only survive, they'll thrive. Such entertainment we are for them.

[lib2DaBone]

7. Keith O. was talking about this the other night.. saying...

He was saying that Obama has done such a bad job of using his bully pulpit to educate the public on simple financial matters... that the Repukes have taken over the task, and lead the way with faulty memes and dangerous talking points.

[russspeakeasy]

17. Yup !

:evilfrown: Smart in school, dumb on the bus..

[woo me with science]

111. Obama has been spouting Republican talking points FOR them.

Thanks to his efforts, they are now Democratic, Third Way talking points, as well.

It is no longer possible to defend the indefensible.

[madrchsod]

9. i expect the democrats to do this but most of them are fucking cowards

they fucking cowards in the face of hate. they stand by and watch our country turn into a fascist state. someday, somehow,someone will stand up and say no more. i thought it would be obama would be man enough to do it but he`s just another brick in the wall.

[grasswire]

10. I read the other day that applications for various kinds of federal aid...

...call Social Security income "unearned income."

Huh????

If I earned it, and the government took it from my paycheck month after month, and then pays it back in increments, how is that UNEARNED?

[dionysus]

11. good post, but social security is an entitlement program. look up the definition of entitlement.

just because repukes make it a "dirty word" like they did with liberal, doesn't change the definition.

1: a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

[sabrina 1]

45. And SS is neither of those. SS is a retirement fund paid for by

the beneficiaries. It is NOT a 'government program providing benefits to members of a specific group'. The Governmetn does NOT provide those benefits, the people do. And it is not 'benefits specified especially by law' provided by the Government. It is provided by the people who pay into it.

He should NOT be calling it an entitlement program. He knows full well what that means to people given the success of the use of the word to portray it as welfare. He should know better. When will people at least be willing to acknowledge when he is wrong? You can still support him without twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to defend him when he is clearly wrong.

[dionysus]

46. maybe you should start lobbying merriam webster to redefine the word then.

SS is an entitlement program, which is totally fine. by LAW you've paid into it your whole working life, you are ENTITLED to recieve benefits, because it is bound by CONTRACT (see by law). unless you can't accept the definition of a word... i don't know what kind of pretzel you think i am twisting myself into, by quoting the dictionary.

are you grasping for straws that badly? are you so invested in the narrative that obama supporters are doing wrong and covering up evil that you say this?

[Gormy Cuss]

73. Social Security is an entitlement program. While it's true that we pay into it,

it's still an entitlement because it has guaranteed benefits based on eligibility criteria. The amount of the benefit is based on what one paid in, but the benefit is not limited to a payback with investment value. Some who benefit made no direct contribution at all -- those who collect survivor benefits.


It should be called an entitlement program at every opportunity because that's what it is. The only fault is that Dems and the admin aren't making enough effort to counter the right wing use of entitlement as a curse word.

[sabrina 1]

83. Except for the fact that the far right has transformed the meaning

of the word 'entitlement' to its other meaning, 'lazy people who feel entitled to government handouts'. Anyone who has had a conversation with rightwingers will be told about how 'liberals are encouraging entitlement programs' for those too lazy to go out and get jobs.

Words have meanings and sometimes the meanings are determined by the culture we live in rather than the original actual meaning of the words. There are lots of words we use today that had completely different meanings 100 years ago.

[greenkelleen]

125. I was in a conversation...

today, with a woman who blamed the amount she has to pay on her property taxes on: "Those white-trash people in their single-wides who have too many kids and then want me to pay for their kids' education so they can grow up to spell DSHS." The 'meaning' you stated above is EXACTLY what she would attach to 'entitlement program.'

[Gormy Cuss]

126. They haven't transformed the meaning of government entitlements.

100 years ago? This isn't an old meaning of the term. It's in current use every day. The RW noise machine hasn't yet destroyed the specific meaning connected with " government entitlement programs. They have convinced the RWers, but not the moderates and Democrats who are capable of understanding that words have more than one meaning.

[Capitalocracy]

14. Well, I assure you not all 30-year-olds are falling for the lies.

I'm 28 and I see right through it. But I also have no voice in the matter.

[BlueIris]

19. 32 and I don't buy it, either.

Ugly, ugly lies.

[pmorlan1]

15. Help from Democrats

The Republicans couldn't have done it alone, they needed Democratic help and sadly they got it.

[former9thward]

16. You are wrong about one thing.

Democrats took those SS dollars for the general fund just like the Republicans.

[izquierdista]

18. It IS an entitlement program

Workers who have paid in* are entitled to collect. Period. No weaseling out, no discussion.



*and various eligible dependents

[Generic Other]

24. They said that when I was 30 too and I told them I would get my money

one way or the other. I still believe this to be true. In fact it is the curse I lay on the GOP.

If you want a revolution of seniors with walkers and canes and cat-food starved eyes who will descend like a geriatric flash mob with ecoli soiled hands in grocery stores where they can only finger the bread they can't afford to buy, go right ahead and steal their social security from them. Take their Medicare so they are sick and coughing antibiotic resistant germs on your children. Take their homes. Their savings. Maybe they will start eating your pets. Or dying on your front lawn moaning and screaming in agony. Let us all make a stink to high heaven if this is how it must end. Let the Republicans recover the dead and bury us in paupers graves.

Because the country will most certainly die with us. A country that cares nothing for its people and steals everything from them will perish as surely as fruit rots -- from within.

[SwampG8r]

50. bravo i dont know what the DU

equivalent of a standing ovation is but consider me doing it

[Art_from_Ark]

59. "A country that cares nothing for its people and steals everything from them

will perish as surely as fruit rots -- from within."

:thumbsup:

Having become politically aware during the Great Society, I can't believe we are even having to have this discussion.

[BzaDem]

27. Social security is popular because it is universal. Not because of nuances in funding mechanisms.

I also sometimes want to go on the roof and scream, because there are actually people who think a payroll tax holiday is a cut to social security. Unbelievable.

[sabrina 1]

34. Did you support it when Republicans proposed it?

I thought Democrats were opposed to it back then because it was viewed as a sneaky way to cut the funding to SS.

[BzaDem]

61. What proposal are you talking about, and what date was it proposed?

In particular, was it proposed in a liquidity trap (i.e. a time where an increase in aggregate demand is absolutely essential)?

I am honestly unaware of what proposal you are referring to.

[sabrina 1]

82. It was proposed in 2001 by Republicans

They proposed a tax holiday for the month of December that year. The economy had suffered a blow because of 9/11 and this was one of their proposals.

[BzaDem]

110. In December 2001, the federal funds rate was 1.75 percent. That still left the Fed significant

breathing room to help the economy without additional fiscal policy. So such a tax cut would have been at the very least unneeded at the time (as we found out when the economy recovered after further lowering of the federal funds rate to 1%).

In the current situation, the federal funds rate is 0%, and should (if we had the ability) be negative. There is nothing more the fed can do with short term interest rates, and while quantitative easing has helped, its effects are more limited and uncertain than traditional interest rate setting. That is when you need fiscal expansion to help the economy recover.

[sabrina 1]

115. There is plenty more they can do. Is SS the only thing anyone

can think of in this country, no matter what the problem is?

We could increase SS benefits which would be far more effective at stimulating the economy. The Fed. Govt could repay part of the debt they owe the fund to do so, which would reduce the debt rather than increase it, the way this will.

Since apparently this country cannot find a single economist who has better ideas than the ones who helped create the problems in the first place, if we must turn again to SS, let's do it in a constructive way. Not this roundabout way of jeopardizing the future of how SS is funded. We were suspicious when it was a Republican idea, I see no reason not to be equally suspicious now, do you?

And since this has been in effect for almost a year, just how has it contributed to creating jobs? It's not like we don't have a way of figuring out whether or not it will even work. Seems to me, like the Bush tax cuts, it has not helped create any jobs. So why extend it?

[BzaDem]

129. Stimulus needs to be targetted and temporary.

A benefit change (while a good thing in and of itself) is a long term change, and long term changes should be paid for. That is not a good candidate for stimulus.

The federal government paying back debt owed to the fund is exactly the opposite of what we need: that would take money OUT of the economy, and be anti-stimulus.

The truth is that next to infrastructure spending and unemployment benefits, tax cuts targeted to the non-rich are a good way to boost consumer spending. They take effect immediately and they can easily be revoked later.

"And since this has been in effect for almost a year, just how has it contributed to creating jobs?"

That is always not completely clear, since we don't know how many jobs we would have gained or lost in the absence of the tax cut. But standard economic research over the years has indicated that this kind of targeted (at the non-rich), temporary fiscal expansion does create jobs in a liquidity trap.

[sabrina 1]

131. Well, I didn't say the Fed .Govt should just pay back the debt.

I said that at least the same effect, if not better, could be achieved by raising SS benefits, using the same money to cover the shortfall created by the 'tax holiday' to cover the increase in benefits. That would 'kill two birds with one stone'. Stimulate the economy, in the same way the 'tax holiday' would do, while at the same time reducing the Fed. Govt's debt. People on SS, the disabled, retirees, will spend that extra money as they have so little to begin with, and such a step would actually be targeting those who need it most.

The 'tax holiday' benefits higher earners more than lower earners, and may not be spent as hoped. And, to cover it, more debt will be created.

As for not knowing how it has worked so far, well, then, why do something that has been effect but has shown no discernible results. The hope is it will create jobs. That is a very tenuous hope. Some people will see only a few dollars difference in their pay checks and even if they do buy some things at Target or McDonalds it doesn't seem to me that more people would need to be hired to handle that kind of spending.

[McCamy Taylor]

36. Cash in the hands of workers is an accepted form of stimulus. All this teeth gnashing

sounds pretty fishy to me.

[Nay]

79. Yes, cash in the hands is. But then why not just send everyone a check

from the general fund that would be the equivalent amount of the payroll deduction for a year?

Why not? Because they don't really give a damn if we have any money -- the ultimate objective is to be able to claim that SS is funded partly out of the general fund (which is how it is being funded while the current payroll tax reduction is in effect), so they can then claim that SS contributes to the deficit and must be cut!

HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN IT BE???? They want our SS money too, and if the DEMS are falling for this shit, then it truly is all over.

[bread_and_roses]

95. How about some worker cash from JOBS and DECENT WAGES?

I just love all this defense of the indefensible in the name of putting cash in workers' pockets. There are no jobs. Wages have been stagnant or falling (while the Banksters pocketed the excess profits generated by same) for 30+ years.

Let's have some jobs and decent wages and workers will have "cash in their pockets" without shorting SS.

[OwnedByFerrets]

37. I want to do the same....and then you hear and read the apologists here

that think its a good idea. Makes me sick.

[jwirr]

38. In 2012 I want my ballot to have the usual candidates and then I want

them to add a second part to the candidate choices: I want to be able to tell them that I am not voting for them because I agree with them but only because I have no choice. For Al Franken I would not need that - I do agree with him. He is my choice. Same with Amy K. I would like to be able to tell President Obama that I want him to change directions. And as for Craavack I would like to tell him to go to hell.

[chill_wind]

39. "They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking ...

They want obedient workers. Obedient workers.

People who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime, and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it.

And now they're coming for your social security money ... They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on wall street. And you know something, they'll get it."

- George Carlin

[KG]

42. George knew what time it was...

[lunasun]

40. Yes a good run on propaganda to younger crowd that SS is "worthless"

[Jim_Shorts]

47. Social Security is supposed to be off-budget

If they want to start a process of taking part of our trust fund money and then replace it with general fund money, then why don't they just use general fund money to begin with? What will they cut in the general fund later that they won't cut now?

Amazing that Social Security is in such horrible shape that they need to make cuts, but at the same time they can't wait to tap into it whenever they get the urge.

This is not going to turn out well.

[bertman]

51. HUGE REC. Thank you, ThomWV. nt

[blkmusclmachine]

52. With a full aid and abet from the bought-out "Media."

n/t

[Skittles]

53. repukes have Obama doing their dirty work

gawd we are SOOO fucked

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Missy Vixen]

64. I've been here for 11 years

I was a Democrat (and voting) before you were born.

Why don't you offer your substantive analysis as to why we are NOT "fucked", as Skittles so eloquently said?

[Whisp]

71. and how are you so sure of my age?

just as sure as Obama is just fucking everything up?

[Missy Vixen]

93. Because an adult would offer substantive proof refuting the opinion

rather than name-calling and petulance.

Those currently receiving Social Security depend on it. It's not like they can go back to work. Those who've paid into it would like to receive the benefits they've already paid for. This President has already shown he's poor at negotiating, and even poorer at sticking up for anyone who's not a banker or makes over $250,000 a year.

He put SS on the negotiating table, did he not?

[Whisp]

96. no, he did not put SS on the table.

if you are so sure, why is it that that statement has not yet been proven or supported by anything here, yet it's taken as truth because someone without any special knowledge in the Hamster cage thought it or someone at Huffpo wishes it.

It just sounds good to some ears: Obama hates us all, especially unions, teachers and old people. He trained his whole life to fuck us all and squeeze us into solyent green to offer to the Repuglicans.

Is that adult thinking to you?

hmmm

[woo me with science]

112. EXCUSE me?

We watched him do it, and SAY that he did it:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president

"Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense. We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."

[Whisp]

116. as usual, you picked out what best suited what you want to think:

Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense. We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. We believed that it was possible to shape those in a way that preserved the integrity of the system, made them available for the next generation, and did not affect current beneficiaries in an adverse way.

[woo me with science]

118. Nonsense. First, he said only "current" beneficiaries. But even that is a lie,

because what was proposed ABSOLUTELY would affect current beneficiaries in an adverse way. The chained CPI would affect current beneficiaries immediately.

[Whisp]

119. when is this happening, because I sure didn't hear it was official

[woo me with science]

121. Let's recap. First you made the absurd & blatantly false claim that he never put SS on the table,

Then, you shifted your argument to try to challenge details of the offer you claimed he never made.

And now, after TWO demonstrably false claims, you are trying the Super Twilight Zone strategy:

How utterly absurd to attempt to use as a defense of this President that he has not cut anything yet, when he spent the entire negotiation period putting 650 billion dollars worth of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid cuts on the the table and begging for them to be accepted.

You have attempted to shift the argument repeatedly, with miserable results. Bottom line: You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.

Thank you for participating here. I really mean that. It is important that people see the quality of this debate.

[chill_wind]

124. +1000

[Whisp]

128. when are the cuts being implemented, can you answer or not.

[Number23]

122. When people consider saying "we're so fucked" as a sign of "eloquence"

It's best to just keep right on walking.

[inna]

75. personal attack and likely a projection

[Puglover]

108. ABSOLUTELY a projection. nt

[Marr]

94. Lame. n/t

[woo me with science]

113. Shame on you. nt

[Whisp]

120. lol. okay.

I somehow hit a tripwire.

weird shit here.

[Zax2me]

138. He's a grown man. Power to say no.

don't know what to think if he is doing their work.

[ProSense]

56. Memo To Gretchen Carlson: Economists Say Cutting Payroll Tax Would Boost Employment, Economy

Memo To Gretchen Carlson: Economists Say Cutting Payroll Tax Would Boost Employment, Economy

[KansDem]

60. I got into an argument recently with a GOPer who swore up and down...

...that Social Security was "welfare."

Couldn't shake him on his belief, no matter how hard I tried...

[ejpoeta]

63. you pay into it like you do your 401k. is your 401k welfare? is your pension from your work

welfare? is the insurance from your job welfare? is your paycheck welfare? you worked for it. you did the work and paid into it. it is not welfare. but we all pay into it. and we all pay into welfare. even those using it. dumbass idiot drones. they need to stop watching faux and limbaugh.

[KansDem]

133. I gave him those policies as examples...

I said "You have auto insurance? It's there you if you should need it! You have homeowner's insurance? It's there for if you should need it! You have life insurance? It's there if your family should need it!"

I told him we all pay premiums on Social Security and, just like our various insurance polices, it's there if we should need it.

He still insisted SS was "welfare." I finally called him crazy and told him to crawl back under his teapot!

Some days it just isn't worth chewing through the straps...

[Enthusiast]

65. K&R

How about "our side" not compound the problem by proposing we further cut the payroll tax?

[WinkyDink]

66. (why do they always use "shove it down your throat")---- In. The. Closet.

Or just hysterically anti-gay. The psychology betrays them.

[ThomWV]

104. You are precisely right of course

Not only are they screaming bigots but they are even worse homophobes. To think that many of them do it in the name of their Jesus too.

[zippytheplatypus]

67. i gotta be honest..

I'm 37. I'll be 65 in December 2038. I figure there's a 25% chance of nuclear holocaust by then, another 25% the US won't exist and 100% chance that $1200 or whatever my monthly check will be won't buy a cup of coffee. Go ahead & scream all you want but I have never given a single thought in my entire life to looking forward to getting Social Security. I'd like to take whatever I've paid in & naked short BofA right to hell with it. But that & other pipe dreams..

I feel bad for all these millions of people who have paid in & really depend on it but its already a done deal. They've already taken food & energy inflation out of the CPI calculation, that's just cold blooded.. The only way to fix it is through campaign finance & Fed reform. We need a plan for real & to find our own Buddy Roemer, someone with principles who is INCORRUPTIBLE. I'm tired of reacting to everything.

[w0nderer]

68. k&r for reading later n/t

[Ruby the Liberal]

70. Oddly, it is a Dem administration that is defunding it

while a Republican Admin (Reagan) raised the withholding.

Only Nixon could go to China and only a Dem could dismantle the New Deal.

I am getting so sick of the whole corrupt lot of them.

[veness]

72. Screaming here! k & r. n/t

[xchrom]

74. ...

:applause:

[defendandprotect]

76. Come on... it took RW 30 years and more to do this -- and they didn't do it without the Dems ...!!

RW are experts at propaganda because they've studied it --

including in Nixon's White House --

Yet much of our non-fiction wasn't even mentioning RW propaganda --

GOP elected officials were kept "on message" as well by regular taped recordings --

no one remembers that?

There is no coming to terms with any of our problems as long as we don't recognize

the full evil of those governing us -- and, sadly, that isn't only Republicans!

[sulphurdunn]

84. The political establishment

(the leadership of both parties) have been working diligently to privatize ALL government operations since the early 80s. They are succeeding. That is all you need to know. Anything they do that wafts even a whiff of this should be resisted. The pro/con arguments are merely distractions.

[Desertrose]

91. K & R (x1000)

I still can't believe they* are actually are going to do this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:grr:

*they meaning R's & D's. They are all the same.

[dogmoma56]

92. if they dont get what they want... we will start to see many more assassinations soon, Giffords is a

good example.. the Conservatives are blocking the giving of medication to her shooter, why, and why isn't anyone questioning that..

the GOP has been infected by Dominionists.. the term now relates to an amalgam of Doug Coe C street Fascism, the Fundi Evangelical movement, the Financial Elite funding of Tea Party Patriot type mayhem mob groups. these people believe that Democracy is Socialism.. godless communism.

the various extremists groups all think that are on a mission for god.. all deceived by the Fascist Oligarchy using them to become dictators, the end product can only be this..

http://doggo.tripod.com/doggchrisdomin.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dueHTalAOWE


http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/01/10/207315/gabrielle-giffords-a-tireless-advocate-for-solar-energy/

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/in-last-interview-before-shooting-rep-gabrielle-giffords-proposed-pay-cuts-for-legislators/

[Highway61]

97. Huge K & R

[Doctor_J]

99. Symptom of a much bigger problem. Thursday's speech could have been Reagan talking

and yet we're supposed to cheer wildly. Any real Dem would have repeated, from day one of the phony deficit crisis, "Social Security does not, never has, and never will contribute to the deficit. It will not be touched, in any way".

[woo me with science]

127. +10000 "Symptom of a much bigger problem"

The "much bigger problem" is that we have corporatist Third Way faux Democrats with right wing policy goals in the Congress and in the Oval Office.

Wake up, people. We need to take back our party and our government.

[GreenTea]

101. "Republicans have misrepresented Social Security so often........

and for so long that enough working people now misunderstand what it is".....(Absolutely positively a more accurate statement could never be found).

AND THE AFOREMENTIONED LINES ALSO APPLIES TO UNIONS AS WELL!

THE REPUBLICANS HAVE DEMONIZED UNIONS FOR SO LONG, THAT EVEN MANY WORKING PEOPLE FIGHT AGAINST THEIR OWN INTEREST & THEIR ONLY UNITED VOICE AGAINST THE CORPORATE MACHINE.....UNIONS!

The greedy lying slimy hate-mongering corporate-fascist republicans and their financial backers, the corporations are destroying this country and in particular devastating working people, the middle-class and small businesses.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

105. Instead of going up on the roof, try this at a busy intersection

near you, one with signal lights.

Make a sign that reads.

HONK
NO CUTS
TO
S S

you won't believe what you hear, the results will blow you away, it will be deafening,
and if this spreads around the country it will generate it's own news.
it will be the best straw poll ever. It will send a message.
that message will be received by all the motorists at that intersection as well.
When they realize that they have the majority.

[chill_wind]

114. This is a thought, as well

Writing or stamping on money:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1671141

[leftstreet]

107. K&R

[Zax2me]

139. But it was the greatest speech ever in history.

read so right here.